Psycho cop pulls gun on handgun licensee, court says courthouse is a 'high crime area' by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Psycho cop pulls gun on handgun licensee, court says courthouse is a 'high crime area'

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 08:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 473
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:45 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

It's open season on gun carriers.

A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun.

At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture.

Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (a cop) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."

Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d15
-Federal-judge-rules-concealed-carry-is-probable-cause-of-criminal-activity

Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi's face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.

Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.

This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31
-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers

SCHUBERT v CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND SPRINGFIELD POLICE OFFICER J.B. STERN
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1370P-01A.pdf

Compare to: Flip off the cops, win $50,000!
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=41308

Yes ALL courthouses are "high-crime areas" because cops, prosecutors and judges perp 99% of all crimes.

The lawyer may have botched his 1983 lawsuit by laziness -- hard to tell from this report or the court order. 1983 lawsuits are won against govt by proving "defective training". Surviving a motion for summary judgement (filed before discovery is allowed) requires filing as much evidence as possible to "prove facts are in dispute". Filing a similar lawsuit in state court might succeed. No mention of police audiotape or transcript, which should have recorded the entire arrest since the cop was sitting in his patrol car. Lawyer knew better than to not have his own audio recorder at all times, for use every time he talks to a cop. No real damages, since he got his gun back and no "real" arrest -- courts allow "reasonable detention" without charges or probable cause for less than 15 minutes. But he should appeal to US Supreme Court, just for clarification, and to learn RW CLE.

Jew cop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

Cops must fail an IQ test as condition of employment.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-
for-being-too-intelligent/
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-47177.html

Head of State 2003: "The Great Culling will soon begin..."
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=41296

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 6:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, that's comin all too common now, but Mister Grigg nails this one square.

Neither Sword Nor Shield: Full-Spectrum Civilian Disarmament
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/01/neither-sword-nor-shield-
full-spectrum.html

Again, I got some issues with making a Felony conviction the fucking lepers mark of doom and forcing people to carry it around their neck for all eternity, depriving them of many of the options they'd need to turn their life around - either they paid their damn debt to society or they ain't, and given the average american commits three Felonies a day by pure accident with our twisted legal system, an eternal mark of doom for it is just insane...

But most particularly, the body armor thing pisses me off - sure, you don't want a violent felon packin heat, I can understand that, but what THREAT does self-protection offer to anyone else ?

I mean, only someone with no IDEA how a ballistic vest works would think someone wearing one is an aggressive threat to someone armed, and anyone who's ever been hit while wearing one will tell you, you ain't gonna be doin NOTHIN for a good long time after you catch one, even if the vest stops it cold.

And frankly, BECAUSE of the felony conviction and the difficulties lack of employment history and that black marks effect on someones credit and rental history, the only place they're gonna be able to get housing is in the damned ghetto, so a ballistic vest is a sensible level of protection, ESPECIALLY for someone who cannot carry a firearm, and to deny it to them... sheeeit, folks, we might as well just shoot em in the head right there in the courtroom, oughten we ?

Be kinder than torturing them, victimizing them, over and over again.. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Seriously, when is enough, enough ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 8:55 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-US Constitution, Amendment II

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-Mahatma Gandhi, attorney at law, Gandhi, An Autobiography, "The story of my experiments with truth" (Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, pg 446-447, Beacon Press, 1957)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE